Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:52:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:52:10 -0500 Received: from bay-bridge.veritas.com ([143.127.3.10]:7477 "EHLO mtvmime02.veritas.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:52:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:59:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Hugh Dickins X-X-Sender: hugh@localhost.localdomain To: "David S. Miller" cc: akpm@digeo.com, , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] flush_cache_page while pte valid In-Reply-To: <20021112.135147.21135668.davem@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1007 Lines: 25 On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Hugh Dickins > Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:43:40 +0000 (GMT) > > Sorry, I still don't get it. If the flush_cache_page is doing something > necessary, then won't a user access in between it and invalidating pte > undo what was necessary? And if it's not necessary, why do we do it? > (For better performance would be a very good reason.) > > If there are other writable mappings of the page, we can't swap > it out legally. But I'm worried about the case where this is the last writable mapping: it seems userspace (on another CPU) can still write to it in between the flush_cache_page and invalidation of the pte (on this CPU hoping to swap out that page). Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/